This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

About Me

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Hypocritical Darwinists shamelessly cozy up to religion

Hey, you Darwinists! I thought that Darwinism was all science and had nothing to do with religion!

The National Center for Science Education, which despite its innocuous-sounding name is devoted to suppression of criticism of Darwinism in the public schools, has a vacancy for a full-time permanent position called "Faith Project Director". The online ad for the job says,

Faith Project Director

The National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools, seeks candidates for the post of Faith Project Director.

The FPD's duties will include:

developing materials pertaining to evolution and religion for print and web; representing NCSE to the faith community, in print and in person; serving as liaison between NCSE and professional theological societies and religious organizations; speaking to the press about issues involving evolution education and challenges to it; counseling teachers, administrators, parents, and others facing challenges to evolution education.

Candidates should have either formal academic training in or extensive informal knowledge of theology, particularly as it relates to science. A record of involvement in or understanding of the creationism/evolution controversy is a plus. A scientific background, especially in biology or geology, and experience in science education at the high school level are desirable but not necessary. Excellent communication skills, both written and oral, are necessary. Travel may be required.

Full-time permanent position with medical benefits in Oakland, California, to start as soon as possible. Salary commensurate with experience and competitive with similarly sized non-profits.

It is interesting that although candidates are expected to have strong backgrounds in theology, a scientific background in biology or geology is merely "desirable but not necessary." Also, the NCSE does not merely "[defend] the teaching of evolution in the public schools," but actively seeks to suppress the teaching and even the mere mention of criticism of evolution in the public schools.

Lawsuit Alleges that Federally-Funded Evolution Website Violates Separation of Church and State by Using Religion to Promote Evolution

San Francisco, CA— A California parent, Jeanne Caldwell, is filing a federal lawsuit today against officials of the National Science Foundation and the University of California at Berkeley for spending more than $500,000 of federal money on a website that encourages teachers to use religion to promote evolution in violation of the First Amendment.

“In this stunning example of hypocrisy, the same people who so loudly proclaim that they oppose discussion of religion in science classes are clamoring for public school teachers to expressly use theology in order to convince students to support evolution,” said Larry Caldwell, President of Quality Science Education for All, who is co-counsel in the suit with the Pacific Justice Institute ......

The lawsuit also alleges that the website is being used to further the religious agenda of a private organization, the National Center for Science Education (NSCE), which has a “long history of religious advocacy” on the evolution issue. According to the suit, the NCSE, which helped design the website, provides religious “outreach” programs and “preaching” on evolution to churches, all aimed at convincing people of faith that there is no conflict between their religious beliefs and evolution.

There are other flagrant examples of Darwinists cozying up to religion, e.g., "Evolution Sunday" and the "Clergy Letter Project". The Clergy Letter that was signed by clergy members includes the following statement:

We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

Finally, there is Kenneth Miller, author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, who as an expert witness in kitzmiller v. Dover and Selman v. Cobb County testified against the mere mention of criticism of Darwinism in public-school science classrooms.

There is now a double standard here: as I noted in my article "Aptly named 'Lemon test' sucks", "Darwinists like Kenneth Miller are free to express their religious beliefs and say that their belief in Darwinism is consistent with and even based upon their religious beliefs, but critics of Darwinism do not have this freedom." However, Darwinism's religious connections may someday backfire if a judge uses them as a basis for ruling that Darwinism is a religious concept.

24 Comments:

> Hey, you Darwinists! I thought that Darwinism was all science and had nothing to do with religion! <

Since the main opponents to the teaching of evolution are religious fanatics, mentioning them, or preparing to dispute their arguments does not imply that you are embracing their ideas.

> The National Center for Science Education, which despite its innocuous-sounding name is devoted to suppression of criticism of Darwinism in the public schools <

What isn't clear is whether you are intentionally lying or whether you are just stupid enough to believe what you post. The NCSE is not interested in suppression of criticism of evolution in the public schools. They would be happy to have someone come up with scientific criticism of evolution, or a scientific alternative. What they don't want to mix is scientific concepts, such as evolution, and superstition, such as ID.

If someone wants to get a great deal of supporting information for Darwinism, they need only to follow the links that you supply in your articles. The humorous thing is that you completely fail to understand the articles to which you refer. Perhaps it is due to your efforts to "interpret them literally".

>>>>>Since the main opponents to the teaching of evolution are religious fanatics, mentioning them, or preparing to dispute their arguments does not imply that you are embracing their ideas.<<<<<<<

There is a big difference between doing that and doing the following:

(1) Seeking clergy signatures on a letter of support.

(2) Using government funding for a website that encourages public-school teachers to use religion to promote Darwinism.

(3) Having a full-time permanent position called "Faith Project Director."

>>>>>The NCSE is not interested in suppression of criticism of evolution in the public schools. They would be happy to have someone come up with scientific criticism of evolution, or a scientific alternative.<<<<<<

Wrong. The NCSE is not interested in whether the criticism of evolution is scientific or not and does not even care whether evolution itself is scientific or not. The homepage of the NCSE website says, "We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out."

I don't see how working to keep things that are not scientific (either according to the rule of science or court rulings) makes something "not interested in whether the criticism of evolution is scientific or not and does not even care whether evolution itself is scientific or not" (as you say). Maybe that's why the few posters here mock you and suggest that you need therapy.

But of course, everyone else is wrong and you're right. Does that describe you? I think it does. You know what that means? Talk to a shrink about your paranoia.

As for the "Supreme Court ruling," the Supreme Court never ruled on the scientific merits of scientific creationism (also called "creation science"). In Edwards v. Aguillard, the SC merely noted with approval that the district court judge had refused to hear expert testimony concerning the scientific merits of scientific creationism -- the SC said,

" ..... the postenactment testimony of outside experts is of little use in determining the Louisiana Legislature's purpose in enacting this statute. The Louisiana Legislature did hear and rely on scientific experts in passing the bill, but none of the persons making the affidavits produced by the appellants participated in or contributed to the enactment of the law or its implementation. The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning 'battle of the experts' over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law."

As for Barbara Forrest, she is just a conspiracy theorist. She and her followers are the ones who are paranoid.

> As for Barbara Forrest, she is just a conspiracy theorist. She and her followers are the ones who are paranoid. <

"The paranoids are out to get me."

To give an example of how Larry(?)'s mind operates, a few years ago I took him down to go for a plane ride in Van Nuys. This was not his first plane ride with me but it was his last.

On the way I turned to get on the freeway on the nearest onramp about a mile from my home. Larry(?) immediately protested that there was no onramp there. I assured him that there was but he continued to complain that there was not. I told him that I took that onramp daily but that bounced off of his neutron star skull. As we drove up the onramp, Larry(?) protested that the onramp had not been there when he lived in the area (20+ years earlier) and that he should not have been expected to have known about it!

As we got to Van Nuys, I turned off at the appropriate offramp. (I went to Van Nuys Airport about three times a week.) Larry(?) again protested that I was going the wrong way. I asked him if he knew where the airport was and he replied "No." I asked him what offramp I should have taken and he admitted that he didn't know, but this was definitely not the right one.

>>>>>>>>>As for the "Supreme Court ruling," the Supreme Court never ruled on the scientific merits of scientific creationism (also called "creation science"). In Edwards v. Aguillard, the SC merely noted with approval that the district court judge had refused to hear expert testimony concerning the scientific merits of scientific creationism -- the SC said....

The court expressly associated creation science with creationism, see for example:

The court found that the Louisiana Legislature's actual intent was "to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief."

As far as Forrest, I have a hard time seeing her as a "conspiracy theorist." She provides evidence for her claims (differnet editions of Pandas) as well as statements made by DI people (statements that while denied, do effectively and accurately describe their approach).

The court found that the Louisiana Legislature's actual intent was "to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief."<<<<<<

Even if scientific creationism (creation science) is a religious concept or supports a religious concept, there is still the question of whether teaching it serves a legitimate secular purpose (or a "secular purpose that is not a sham," as the courts put it). If scientific creationism has some scientific merit, then teaching it would serve a legitimate secular purpose. However, in my quote of the Edwards v. Aguillard opinion, the Supreme Court as well as the lower courts appeared to be concerned only with determining the purpose of the legislature and not in determining whether scientific creationism has any scientific merit; if the courts had been interested in the latter question, they would have -- or at least should have -- heard expert testimony regarding claims of the scientific merits of scientific creationism. Here again is part of my quote of the Edwards v. Aguillard opinion:

" .....the postenactment testimony of outside experts is of little use in determining the Louisiana Legislature's purpose in enacting this statute ....... The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning 'battle of the experts' over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law.

Also, there is the question of what kind of secular purpose: is it the intended purpose of the public officials, the perceived purpose of the public, or can it be just any reasonable secular purpose? This ambiguity is one of the problems in applying the infamous "Lemon test".

One thing that bothers me about the Edwards decision is that most people interpret it as a nationwide ban on the teaching of scientific creationism in public-school science classes. However, in Edwards, the courts never judged the scientific merits of scientific creationism -- all the courts really did was just judge the intent of the Louisiana legislature that enacted the balanced-treatment law.

Interestingly, the courts have apparently never held hearings to determine the scientific merits of Darwinism, either.

>>>>>As far as Forrest, I have a hard time seeing her as a "conspiracy theorist." <<<<<<

I don't have a hard time seeing her that way. Her basic methods are stereotyping and guilt-by-association.

<<<<<<<> there is still the question of whether teaching it serves a legitimate secular purpose (or a "secular purpose that is not a sham," as the courts put it). <

This question has already been decided by the courts.<<<<<<<

Wrong. The two cases that had significant amounts of expert scientific testimony -- McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1987 -- scientific creationism) and Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005 -- intelligent design) -- did not get past the district court level. There was a little expert scientific testimony in Selman v. Cobb County(2005 -- evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers), but this testimony was not a significant factor in the decision.

<<<<<<> if the courts had been interested in the latter question <

Why should they spend any time on theories that have the Sun rising in the west?<<<<<<

Now that is a really stupid question. If you knew anything about the principle of due process of law, you would know the answer to that question, but you are completely ignorant about the law.

<<<<<> Interestingly, the courts have apparently never held hearings to determine the scientific merits of Darwinism, either. <

Why would this be necessary?<<<<<<

Because a lot of people -- including many scientists -- consider Darwinism to be unscientific, and their numbers are growing.

<<<<<> I don't have a hard time seeing her that way. Her basic methods are stereotyping and guilt-by-association. <

Here is the pot calling the kettle black.<<<<<<

Yes -- she is like a pot calling the kettle black -- thanks for agreeing.

>>>>>ViW,

In case I forget to mention it later, I will be unable to fill in for you this coming weekend.<<<<<

How can emptiness "fill in" for emptiness? Also, why are you talking to yourself?

That must be why I have won all of my cases and you have lost all of yours.

<<<<<> Interestingly, the courts have apparently never held hearings to determine the scientific merits of Darwinism, either. <

Why would this be necessary?<<<<<<

> Because a lot of people -- including many scientists -- consider Darwinism to be unscientific, and their numbers are growing. <

What does this have to do with the courts? You are spouting your usual irrelevancies.

<<<<<> I don't have a hard time seeing her that way. Her basic methods are stereotyping and guilt-by-association. <

Here is the pot calling the kettle black.<<<<<<

> Yes -- she is like a pot calling the kettle black -- thanks for agreeing. <

I take that to be another entry in the Lunatic of the Month contest?

> Also, why are you talking to yourself? <

Due to an inadvertant cleaning of cookies, the autofill of the name Voice in the Urbanness did not appear. I accidentally had posted an earlier post under the name "Voice in the Wilderness". This became the name in the autofill cookie and I did it again.

Of course it makes no difference. We are all Ed Brayton. Perhaps even you are Ed Brayton?

>>Perhaps someone could check this by coming up with a scientific alternative. So far that hasn't happened.<<

Oh yes it has, - many times. It is just that these alternatives seem to be swept under the carpet by Darwinists.

For a review, readable by the layman, read chapters 5 & 6 in the 1982 book The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitchings, an evolutionist. Chapter 5 considers Young Earth Creationism and why that has failed, and Chapter 6 considers the other scientific alternatives. Chapter 6 begins this way:

“Having rejected the neo-Darwinist synthesis because it is inadequate to answer these and many other questions, and rejected the creationist explanation because it cannot be argued, what, then, do we put in their place? How else do we come to have lions and jellyfish and things?

There are two basic problems which have repeatedly surfaced so far in this book, and have to be faced by any alternative theory. The first is the way that new forms of life appear very suddenly in the fossil record, usually stay there for a long while without changing much, and then die out as abruptly as they arrived. The second is whether there are universal laws of form that underlie evolution: whether lions and jellyfish evolved not just because they were good survivors, but because in a sense they were mathematically ordained to happen that way.

Although the two problems are closely linked, for the sake of clarity I am going to deal with them one after another. As it happens, they represent something of a divide within biology itself. Among critics of orthodox evolutionary theory, who throughout the 1970s grew in number and confidence, there are those who seek little more than a change of emphasis in neo-Darwinism: they accept genetic restructuring as the driving force of evolutionary change, but seek to explain how it can happen quickly rather than gradually. At the other extreme are more fundamental criticisms suggesting that evolutionary biology, precisely because of its preoccupation with genes, has travelled up a backwater – indeed, it is not yet a science at all.

Hopeful monsters

So, genetic upheavals first. One renegade name which, in the critical literature, has noticeably been undergoing a process of rehabilitation is that of Richard Goldschmidt, a refugee from Hitler’s Germany who continued his work at Berkeley. Even as the modern synthesis was being forged by such people as George Simpson during the 1930s and 40s, he saw the difficulties this posed for macro-evolution. He did not dispute conventional theory so far as gradual and continuous change within species was concerned. But he put forward a long list of evolutionary features (panel 11, page 80) that he thought inexplicable on the basis: the wing of a bird, the mammal eye, and so on.

He proposed, and thus aroused the ire of orthodox evolutionists, that these changes had happened suddenly, through ‘monstrous’ mutations – the kind that produce fairground exhibits like two-headed sheep or stunted rabbits. He agreed that almost all of these would fail to survive; but just occasionally, a monstrosity would make the grade – and in this way a new species would emerge. He gave the newcomer a catchy name: hopeful monster.

He was denounced for both what he did and didn’t say, but although today he rates hardly a footnote in most orthodox textbooks, researchers looking for a faster mode of evolution than the gradual accumulation of single mutations beloved by neo-Darwinists are finding in his work much to commend. `Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster”, a mutation that, in a single genetic step, simultaneously permits the occupation of a new niche and the development of reproductive isolation, no longer seems entirely unacceptable,’ wrote Guy Bush, of Texas University’s zoology department, in 1975.

The central theme of his major book, The Material Basis of Evolution, is that small but significant genetic changes at the embryonic stage can give rise to large changes in adulthood.

He quotes approvingly his contemporary Otto Schindewolf, who had pointed out that those who look for missing links in the fossil record are doomed to look in vain: ‘The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.’ Goldschmidt was one of the first to realize that the genetic system was much more complex than the one-for-one correlation implicitly accepted by most experts at the time – a gene for eye colour, another gene for tail length, and so on. He embraced the notion of rate genes, and established that small differences in the timing of pigmentation in the embryo resulted in large differences in the colour patterns of full-grown caterpillars. In general ‘a genetic change affecting the rate, time of inception, time of determination, range of regulatory ability of embryonic processes, may occur in a single step without requiring a rebuilding of much of the genetic material’.

So an entirely original monstrosity might appear on the face of the Earth in one genetic leap; and if it happened to find a congenial ecological space, could become established there as a new species. ‘A fish undergoing a mutation which made for a distortion of the skull carrying both eyes to one side of the body is a monster. The same mutant in a much compressed form of fish living near the bottom of the sea produced a hopeful monster, as it enabled the species to take to the life upon the sandy bottom of the ocean, as exemplified by the flounders!’”

-----------------

Other alternatives are John A. Davison’s Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, which has been published in Revista de Biologia. Davison's hypothesis has at least been around since 1984.

Why are not these alternatives presented to biology students? I leave the reader to answer that question.

Thank you very much for the plug, John Darius. I think you will soon see my proposals dismissed as ridiculous. That is the way the Darwinians have always dealt with their critics. There is one very significant difference between the proposals presented by Hitchings and myself.

I have offered the cytogenetic mechanism by which the contained latent information was expressed through the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) which I first proposed, as you indicated, in 1984.

It has always been only the MECHANISM of evolution that was ever in contention anyway. No serious scientist has ever denied organic continuity which is the sine qua non of any evolutionary scenario. Certainly none of my sources ever did, Punnett, Berg, Schindewolf, Bateson, Broom, Goldschmidt, Grasse, Osborn or Mivart. They were all convinced evolutionists and all rejected the Darwinian model as without merit.

They all, like Hitchings and of course myself have been ignored by the establishment as if we never existed. There are sins of omission as well as those of commission and the atheist Darwinian faction is master of both varieties. The callous disregard that Gould, Mayr, Provine and most recently Dawkins have disregarded the many critics of the Darwnian fairy tale is a scandal unprecedented in the history of science. Try to find serious treatments of their views in the many books by these same ultraDarwinian authors. You will look in vain for any kind of fair appraisal and will be lucky to find any treatment at all.

The Darwinian myth has persisted for one reason only. Its proponents refuse to consider that there has been a purpose in the universe, its design and its execution. They mistakenly thought they had discoverd the cause of evolution with random mutation and natural selection, neither of which ever had anything to do with either true speciation or the formation of any of the higher taxonomic categories. Indeed, both are antievolutionary and always have been. So have been obligatory sexual reproduction and Mendelian genetics. These are all much too conservative to ever have been able to produce new kinds of living creatures. They cant even transcend the species barrier.

All creative evolution took place driven from within the evolving forms with no role for the environment beyond that of acting as a stimulus for endogenous capacities. Furthermore, creative evolution is now finished and has been for a very long time which is one more dismal failure for the Darwinian model. They actually believe that evolution is going on all around us when they are quite unable to demonstrate it.

I can now state with complete confidence that Darwinism never had anything whatsoever to do with evolution beyond the formation of varieties or in some instances subspecies. The truth lies elsewhere and I can state with equal confidence that I know where that is. It resides in the substance presented in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."Oscar Wilde

That must be why I have won all of my cases and you have lost all of yours.<<<<<<

I have not lost all of my cases. And if you are completely ignorant of the law, the judges show some sympathy for you; if you show any knowledge of the law, the judges become extremely jealous and act accordingly.

<<<<<<> Because a lot of people -- including many scientists -- consider Darwinism to be unscientific, and their numbers are growing. <

What does this have to do with the courts? <<<<<<<

Quite a bit. It increases the likelihood of lawsuits. And judges are often influenced by public opinion, though they won't admit it.

<<<<<> Also, why are you talking to yourself? <

Due to an inadvertant cleaning of cookies, the autofill of the name Voice in the Urbanness did not appear. I accidentally had posted an earlier post under the name "Voice in the Wilderness". This became the name in the autofill cookie and I did it again.<<<<<<

You "accidentally had posted an earlier post under the name 'Voice in the Wilderness'"? That is kind of a big accident. And the autofill system fooled you twice -- reminds me of that saying, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Also, it looks like you have posted under at least three different names here -- your latest is "Voice In Westchester." On a lot of blogs, the use of multiple names is not permitted.

Which one did you ever win? The ones you lost are well known. Check Larry Fafarman under Westlaw and it seems to be a synonym for "loser".

> And if you are completely ignorant of the law, the judges show some sympathy for you; if you show any knowledge of the law, the judges become extremely jealous and act accordingly. <

That is it. The contest is over for the month. No one could hope to beat that one in the "Lunatic of the Month" contest. You should save your further entries for August.

> You "accidentally had posted an earlier post under the name 'Voice in the Wilderness'"? That is kind of a big accident. And the autofill system fooled you twice -- reminds me of that saying, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." <

I can see that you know no more about cookies than you do about other aspects of computing. Now any time I type a "V" in the box it will give "Voice in the Wilderness" as one of the fill-in options until I take the time to hunt down and erase that cookie. In the mean time if ViW doesn't care, I don't and he doesn't seem to be around on the weekends.

> Also, it looks like you have posted under at least three different names here <

But you haven't a clue as to what is the third. Anyone with half a brain would know by now who I am. Real Dave knows, then again he always had the brains in the family.

> On a lot of blogs, the use of multiple names is not permitted. <

You initiated it on this blog. You have posted as Larry Fafarman, Dave Fafarman, Ed Brayton, and several others.

Horror of horrors! I return and I find that not only has someone posted as me, but they have posted exactly what I would have said if I had been here. If I were Larry(?), I would protest. Then again, I'm not Larry(?).

I know who ViU is. If the clue he posted earlier in the day as me doesn't tell you who is, you are even denser than we thought.

I would ask ViU why he can't fill in next week but it is probably his own business. He may be helping the little green men that you say publish the Los Angeles Times. Perhaps Ed Brayton could pick up the ball and run with it. The only problem is that I don't think Ed cares in the least.

Congratulations Larry(?)on your leading entry in the "Lunatic of the Month" contest. So far it looks like you will sweep the field again.

And when challenged on which one he ever won, he dodged the question and said:

> Exactly! Like I said, judges are biased against pro se litigants who show any knowledge of the law or who can put an intelligent sentence together.<

All of my cases were pro se and I won every one. Perhaps it is because judges traditionally favor pro se litigants. Since Larry(?) knows nothing at all of the law, he lost in spite of the judge's favoritism.

> Thank you for proving my point for me. <

See! The dingbat takes his unbroken record of failure as proof of his legal knowledge. What a flake!

Larry(?), we do not have to look at your court record to know that you know nothing about law. You demonstrate it daily on this blog.

Carry on. I am obviously wasting my time here. Both sides in this idiotic debate are full of it right up to their eyeballs. There never was a personal God and there never will be and chance ever played a role either. The God or Gods that planned and prepared both ontogeny and phylogeny are dead and have been for millions of years. TRe effort consumed them.